Authenticate HAVA ID Documents

May 25, 2017

May 25, 2017 (RALEIGH) — North Carolina’s recently killed voter ID law included a provision that made us crazy. It was called the Reasonable Impediment Determination (RID) and would allow anybody to vote without a photo ID simply by providing an excuse and a HAVA ID, which is an official looking piece of paper with the voter’s name and address on it (but no picture).

Define the word, “valid”

Under the hamstrung provisions of such legislation across the nation, the voters would file a provisional ballot, but it would be automatically approved unless it wasn’t valid. The courts have made sure that “verify” only means to make sure the form is properly filled out. The law makes no mention of what to do if someone uses an obviously bogus piece of paper.

The Help America Vote Act (or HAVA) defined “voter ID” such that George W. Bush proudly signed the law that opened the door to allowing federally mandated fake voter ID cards. Among the voter’s options for ID was a picture ID, but they could also use bogus stuff, listed on the SBOE website:

A copy of one of the following documents that show the name and address of the voter: a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document.

Proposal:

Lawmakers should legislate a verification process that discourages exploitation of this good-willed exception for those who lose their wallet on (or near) election day. It will also prevent enterprise level voter fraud.

Details

Require the voter to turn over their HAVA ID long enough for the BOE to obtain a copy and to mail it back to the voter (at no cost to the voter) within 24 hours. Additionally, the BOE would have certain statutory duties to perform in order to authenticate the document and to verify the voter is currently living at the address on the document. For example, there is no reference in current law about the shelf life of the HAVA ID document, so a utility bill from five years ago could still be used as a voter ID. Authentication could help prevent this sort of easy fraud.

If nothing else, our proposed solution will discourage one type of organized effort to steal, oh perhaps, a thousand votes, for a statewide election. If a race is close enough, and if it’s significant enough, some highly funded Soros-backed or ACORN-type criminal enterprises have been known to shift resources to win. The media term for it is “walk-around money,” but let’s be frank: It’s money campaigns allocate to buy extra votes. We’ve seen it over and over, but it’s impossible to prove without collecting illegal film footage of people voting. Our proposed solution wouldn’t end all vote fraud, but it would help discourage this particular form of election fraud.